Judge: Lee S. Arian, Case: 23STCV31798, Date: 2025-02-04 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV31798    Hearing Date: February 4, 2025    Dept: 27

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

On December 29, 2023, Plaintiffs Edy Daniel Chic Ajvix and Mauricio Alejandro Chic Ajvix filed this lawsuit against Defendant Jung H. Chung for negligence, negligence per se, and statutory liability arising from a motor vehicle collision that occurred on March 25, 2022, at the intersection of Olympic Blvd. and Bedford St. in Los Angeles, California.

On January 4, 2024, Plaintiffs voluntarily filed the first amended complaint.

On July 24, 2024, Plaintiffs filed a Doe amendment adding Uber as a Defendant. Uber was served on August 14, 2024. On January 3, 2025, Uber moved to strike portions of the complaint's prayer for punitive damages.

Plaintiffs filed an opposition arguing that the motion is untimely. Defendant Uber filed a reply conceding that the motion was filed beyond the statutory deadline but explaining that the parties had agreed to stipulate to striking punitive damages and to extend the deadline to file the motion to strike pending Court approval of the stipulation. However, Plaintiffs never filed the signed stipulation with the Court and thereafter became unresponsive to Uber’s communications.

Email communications between the parties confirm that they reached an agreement regarding the stipulation to strike punitive damages, although Plaintiffs ultimately did not sign and file the stipulation. (Ex. A.) Additionally, the record contains evidence that Plaintiffs expressly granted Defendant an extension to file the present motion by stating, “we are open to an extension to allow us time to finalize the agreement.” This statement, coupled with Plaintiffs’ failure to finalize and file the stipulation supports Defendant’s contention that they reasonably relied on Plaintiffs’ representations and acted in good faith by delaying the motion to strike. Given these circumstances, the Court finds it proper to exercise its discretion under Code of Civil Procedure section 436 and hear Defendant’s motion to strike.

The Court examined the complaint and finds that it primarily alleges negligence, negligence per se, and statutory liability, but does not contain specific facts indicating that Defendant acted with malice, oppression, or fraud. The allegations describe negligent driving and statutory violations, but there are no claims that Defendant engaged in egregious, reckless, or intentional misconduct beyond ordinary negligence.

Accordingly, the motion is granted with leave to amend within 30 days.

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at SSCDEPT27@lacourt.org indicating intention to submit on the tentative as directed by the instructions provided on the court’s website at www.lacourt.org.  Please be advised that if you submit on the tentative and elect not to appear at the hearing, the opposing party may nevertheless appear at the hearing and argue the matter.  Unless you receive a submission from all other parties in the matter, you should assume that others might appear at the hearing to argue.  If the Court does not receive emails from the parties indicating submission on this tentative ruling and there are no appearances at the hearing, the Court may, at its discretion, adopt the tentative as the final order or place the motion off calendar.